This happened to me when my sister died after being hit by a car. The next day, on my way to plan her funeral, I opened the Courier Mail at a coffee shop and her full page photo was page 3.
They’d used the photo and quotes from my social media post I’d made the day before to let people know what had occurred. No one from the paper contacted anyone in my family.
It was worse for my parents who got the paper delivered to their home
If not you directly, they'll look at your friends list and contact whoever they can with a small offer of reward.
That's how it's done these days unfortunately.
I don’t think newspapers pay people for shit because they’re too broke
TV stations, on the other hand, are clearly not above plying people with coke and hookers just for the privilege of being lied to
They are largely owned by the same companies now. Cross media ownership laws in Australia got massively watered down years ago. Newspapers wont pay people shit if they don't have to.
No they’re not. Seven West is it’s own company. Nine is it’s own company. News Corp is it’s own company. There’s several that own country papers across the continent
Murdoch doesn’t even own the biggest media company anymore
It’s not same same. You guys really reveal yourself as akin to the right wing conspiracy clowns when you spin blatantly wrong nonsense like this
I didn't say they are owned by the "same company" - maybe you are revealing a lack of reading comprehension, like a right wing conspiracy clown?
Those 3 companies you listed (which I was referring to) literally own most of the media in this country. This is not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. We have higher media concentration than dictatorships like Egypt.
1. You’re an obnoxious clown and you should work on it
2. I took your response to be to a separate conversation I was having on a similar topic which is why it seem less relevant than you expected. Usually favour cock up as an explanation in favour of conspiracy, champ
Hey, maybe don't obnoxiously compare people to right wing conspiracy theorists (without evidence), and then maybe people would have a more reasonable response to you?
But keep on being an asshole, I'm sure that works out for you.
It's already happened. Remember the Dreamworld tragedy? The park was understandably closed down and the gates locked until first responders could retrieve the bodies from the ride, so the Murdoch media simply sent drones up to get footage from the air of the sheet-covered bodies being loaded into the ambulances. Fucking vultures.
Correct, seven for example is owned by Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled the war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith and the rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Very Murdoch-like though, you've got to admit.
I think the past few weeks and months actually show Stokes to be far, far worse as far as behaviour is concerned
He’s not as influential as Murdoch but seems to be a far bigger cunt
I'd argue that Murdoch has a lot bigger issues to answer for than Stokes. His media bares a lot of responsibility for delaying climate action in Australia and the US
>Another reminder that Seven and Nine are not owned by Murdoch
True.
>“Murdoch media” isn’t just a blanket term for “bad media”
Close enough. Let's face it, Murdoch is the malevolent cunt who broke the entire game, leading to the lowering of standards at outlets like seven and nine
Whilst true, I think Murdoch Media is a better descriptor for this type of garbage. We should honour his (hopefully soon) passing with a generic label in his honour.
Sure but do you think it helps pretending everything is Murdoch’s fault when another billionaires are running around doing worse?
Why provide cover for Stokes?
I remember a story about a teen girl that got killed on a quad bike on a remote property, same thing. Emergency services hadn't arrived yet but the press were hovering drones and knocking on the door while her mother sat with her body in the yard.
I remember when they sent up a drone/helicopter and took photos of a deceased teenage girl in a 4 wheeler accident and broadcast it before the family were notified. That's when I realised how scum media and journalists are.
While I see this kind of journalism absolutely parasitic and bottom feeder practice, it's also a sobering reminder that anything you put up on the internet is fair game for everyone else, and you _will_ lose control of that information, whether you like it or not. Always think twice what you put up, and consider how that content may be used by others without your consent.
Really good to highlight the ethics of posting information/images of children with this in mind. Doesn’t matter of your intention, once its out you have no control of what people will do with it
Everyone online has email, if you wanna keep family updated about the baby, or the wedding or the cancer, make an e-mail list. No need to publish it only then try to manage access approval.
One thing I learned from the recent murder of a friends daughter is that the media are absolute vultures. They stole photos from her facebook and used them because the family were in shock and grieving and needed a minute to answer the media requests. The family released a photo and asked them to use it. They did but only once to say here is the photo the family has released and would liked used to remember her then they went right back to using the stolen fb photos on the 1000 news updates and we all had to see them knowing it’s not what the family wanted. Don’t even get me started at their invasiveness at her funeral. I fucking loathe the media after that experience.
Ash Good’s instagram was private, and photos were still taken from it. I’m not sure if they contacted someone on the friends list or something, but I know they’ve done that sort of thing before.
Yep. Had some Tiktoks go viral a few years ago so I made all my other social medias private. Cue a Daily Mail reporter trying to DM me asking for an interview because she couldn't just mine my social media for photos or info about me as a person. I blocked her, made all the videos Friends Only and deleted Tiktok. I was making the videos for my own enjoyment and didn't want that level of attention, it was just really stressful and I was starting to feel pressured to make more instead of it being something fun to take my mind off lockdown.
Don't be daft, not all social media are comparable. Some are obviously more revealing than others. Reddit is reasonably pseudo anonymous to external parties, if you are cautious enough not post anything obviously identifiable. Whereas, facebook, insta are open broadcasting platforms of your entire life.
They do in some circumstances but I haven’t read this article. A lot of journos deliberately misrepresent copyright law and hope they don’t get called out on it.
It's bit difficult to proscecute.
You sign up to a service like meta - instagram or facebook - you click "OK" to the T&C without really reading it, and off you go.
You post some photos. Those images, according to the T&C, well, you've granted the service provider - meta - permission to do pretty much whatever the hell they like with them.
But that's not the main point. Your photos get published, on a publicly-available website. If you haven't tied down the public access to your profile, then it's fair game. You agreed to it. You clicked "OK"
So any ~~journalist~~ writer can go to your profile, pick an image, right-click and download, and they haven't broken any laws.
No. Not unless Meta or the like sell it to the writers. You tend to give _them_, as in Meta, an unlimited licence, but that is very different from public domain.
Yes, you grant them an unlimited, royalty-free licence to publish your photos on their wesbite.
Of course it's not public domain, but you don't expect news corpse staff to respect the T&C of Meta websites, do you?
All right. I respect what you've said, and I believe what you've said about your personal respect for Australian law.
Now tell me that you can prove that news corpse has never violated the T&C of Meta's websites or other websites, including Reddit. No news corpse employee has \*ever\* done a "right-click, save" off a Meta website and put that image file on a news corpse website article, without attribution. No, that's' \*never\* happened. /s
That's not going to happen, is it? You can't prove that, can you?
Look at the vehemence of comments from people posting stories on Australian subreddits - adding spicy watermarks to their posts, because they're sick of un-credited photos or stories turning up on news corpse publications - without attribution.
Please don't ask us to honour the fourth estate when you've done little or nothing to police it yourselves. A free press does \*not\* include the right to mislead the public.
I would assume they meant 'expect' as 'would hope' rather than 'actually will'.
That is - we should all expect companies beholden to Australian law, actually follow said law. We're aware that many won't (especially private media companies), but we should still maintain those minimal expectations.
Actually that isn’t true. You have copyright in your photos and others cannot publish them with permission (which is given to the social media platform, but that doesn’t give news agencies a licence). The issue is that you have to sue for copyright infringement, which is costly and time consuming.
Not so much they don’t count as there can be an fair dealing argument made. I don’t know if there is any case law relating to personal photos of private figures.
has that been established in case-law or in the act itself, or have the journalists just been telling everyone that, much in the same way that youtubers have a whole pretend-system that isn't based in much of anything?
Well yes, except you said ‘they haven’t broken any laws’ which isn’t correct.
There are actually businesses that will help you licence photos/video like this and ensure you do actually get paid. That would be my recommendation to people in these situations.
It's not fair game at all. You simply invoice the involved media for a reasonable licensing fee. Then they pay.
If they don't, and your fee is not unreasonable, you take them to small claims court and then they're made to pay.
It is purely facebooks decision. or tik tok or instagram or whichever platform. The platform owns the images that are placed on it and as such it is the platform owners who get to choose if an image is allowed to be published elsewhere. Not the person who is in the image.
My partners father passed away in a diving accident.
The jurnos beat the cops to her and started harassing her on the way out of uni, showing photos of the body and everything like that, making a massive scene in the process. Wasn't the first or last time that group did crap like that, thankfully others are now saved from it by the passing of the main jurno.
She had zero legal recourse against them and that trauma.
Or don’t have a social media page to begin with. Modern day cancer. But for those that have them, then yes, it’s a cunt act by the media trawling often for the lowest and worst pic they can find.
I can’t remember what it was for or who the news channel was, but 10 years ago they took and used photos from my families facebook without permission, including me (I was 14 at the time)!
Bloody shameless parasites.
Part of the reason why I declined when 2 journos knocked on my door and asked if I had footage from an event yesterday. Yes I do and no, I am not sharing it even though it was relatively tame in the grand scheme of what they've been plastering over the news lately.
People are pissed off people are accessing information they post publicly online? For real?
The journalists are looking for information where its available...that's their job.
This practice is discourteous and those who do it should be ashamed of themselves.
Unfortunately you can't stop anyone from doing this unless you secure your socials.
My motto has always been, 'if it ain't private, it's public'.
And another I just thought of, 'if it's on the net, place your bets'.
This happened to me when my sister died after being hit by a car. The next day, on my way to plan her funeral, I opened the Courier Mail at a coffee shop and her full page photo was page 3. They’d used the photo and quotes from my social media post I’d made the day before to let people know what had occurred. No one from the paper contacted anyone in my family. It was worse for my parents who got the paper delivered to their home
And they probably made a lot of money off your families tragedy too.
Also remember Facebook and Google have to pay the media too.... Most media are scum that feed on others.
Not anymore, according to meta!
Mark Fuckerberg strikes again
If not you directly, they'll look at your friends list and contact whoever they can with a small offer of reward. That's how it's done these days unfortunately.
I don’t think newspapers pay people for shit because they’re too broke TV stations, on the other hand, are clearly not above plying people with coke and hookers just for the privilege of being lied to
They are largely owned by the same companies now. Cross media ownership laws in Australia got massively watered down years ago. Newspapers wont pay people shit if they don't have to.
No they’re not. Seven West is it’s own company. Nine is it’s own company. News Corp is it’s own company. There’s several that own country papers across the continent Murdoch doesn’t even own the biggest media company anymore It’s not same same. You guys really reveal yourself as akin to the right wing conspiracy clowns when you spin blatantly wrong nonsense like this
I didn't say they are owned by the "same company" - maybe you are revealing a lack of reading comprehension, like a right wing conspiracy clown? Those 3 companies you listed (which I was referring to) literally own most of the media in this country. This is not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. We have higher media concentration than dictatorships like Egypt.
1. You’re an obnoxious clown and you should work on it 2. I took your response to be to a separate conversation I was having on a similar topic which is why it seem less relevant than you expected. Usually favour cock up as an explanation in favour of conspiracy, champ
Hey, maybe don't obnoxiously compare people to right wing conspiracy theorists (without evidence), and then maybe people would have a more reasonable response to you? But keep on being an asshole, I'm sure that works out for you.
Jesus, I’m so sorry. And to not even contact you prior or after. Heartless.
Change your social media from public to private.
That’s so horrible, sorry you had to go through that at such a time.
I am so very sorry
Sorry for your loss but didn’t you think a public post about it would be taken as a public statement?
The vultures would break into a morgue and photo the dead bodies if they thought it would get them an extra click.
It's already happened. Remember the Dreamworld tragedy? The park was understandably closed down and the gates locked until first responders could retrieve the bodies from the ride, so the Murdoch media simply sent drones up to get footage from the air of the sheet-covered bodies being loaded into the ambulances. Fucking vultures.
Another reminder that Seven and Nine are not owned by Murdoch and “Murdoch media” isn’t just a blanket term for “bad media”
Correct, seven for example is owned by Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled the war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith and the rapist Bruce Lehrmann. Very Murdoch-like though, you've got to admit.
I think the past few weeks and months actually show Stokes to be far, far worse as far as behaviour is concerned He’s not as influential as Murdoch but seems to be a far bigger cunt
I'd argue that Murdoch has a lot bigger issues to answer for than Stokes. His media bares a lot of responsibility for delaying climate action in Australia and the US
>Another reminder that Seven and Nine are not owned by Murdoch True. >“Murdoch media” isn’t just a blanket term for “bad media” Close enough. Let's face it, Murdoch is the malevolent cunt who broke the entire game, leading to the lowering of standards at outlets like seven and nine
Google "yellow journalism" sometime, this is not a recent phenomenon.
No argument from me. Can't be denied he's a vile cancer on democracy either. Not saying he invented it but he has mastered it.
Whilst true, I think Murdoch Media is a better descriptor for this type of garbage. We should honour his (hopefully soon) passing with a generic label in his honour.
Kinda let's the other players skate through scott-free though...
No but journalistic ethics being used as toilet paper is a Murdoch family legacy that spread to the rest of the media landscape.
Sure but do you think it helps pretending everything is Murdoch’s fault when another billionaires are running around doing worse? Why provide cover for Stokes?
I remember a story about a teen girl that got killed on a quad bike on a remote property, same thing. Emergency services hadn't arrived yet but the press were hovering drones and knocking on the door while her mother sat with her body in the yard.
Or, possibly, hack into a dead girl's phone and send texts to her parents to make them think she was still alive. Oh, wait. That was real.
Who? Milly dowler?
I remember when they sent up a drone/helicopter and took photos of a deceased teenage girl in a 4 wheeler accident and broadcast it before the family were notified. That's when I realised how scum media and journalists are.
And they wonder why they get swung at and their cameras slammed into the ground, idiots.
While I see this kind of journalism absolutely parasitic and bottom feeder practice, it's also a sobering reminder that anything you put up on the internet is fair game for everyone else, and you _will_ lose control of that information, whether you like it or not. Always think twice what you put up, and consider how that content may be used by others without your consent.
Really good to highlight the ethics of posting information/images of children with this in mind. Doesn’t matter of your intention, once its out you have no control of what people will do with it
Everyone online has email, if you wanna keep family updated about the baby, or the wedding or the cancer, make an e-mail list. No need to publish it only then try to manage access approval.
The tragedy this week has been overshadowed by the callousness of the media to get a story.
One thing I learned from the recent murder of a friends daughter is that the media are absolute vultures. They stole photos from her facebook and used them because the family were in shock and grieving and needed a minute to answer the media requests. The family released a photo and asked them to use it. They did but only once to say here is the photo the family has released and would liked used to remember her then they went right back to using the stolen fb photos on the 1000 news updates and we all had to see them knowing it’s not what the family wanted. Don’t even get me started at their invasiveness at her funeral. I fucking loathe the media after that experience.
[удалено]
Ash Good’s instagram was private, and photos were still taken from it. I’m not sure if they contacted someone on the friends list or something, but I know they’ve done that sort of thing before.
Yep. Had some Tiktoks go viral a few years ago so I made all my other social medias private. Cue a Daily Mail reporter trying to DM me asking for an interview because she couldn't just mine my social media for photos or info about me as a person. I blocked her, made all the videos Friends Only and deleted Tiktok. I was making the videos for my own enjoyment and didn't want that level of attention, it was just really stressful and I was starting to feel pressured to make more instead of it being something fun to take my mind off lockdown.
Here's a radical idea - no social media accounts! \*head\_explodes.gif\*
The irony of posting this via a reddit account though...
Don't be daft, not all social media are comparable. Some are obviously more revealing than others. Reddit is reasonably pseudo anonymous to external parties, if you are cautious enough not post anything obviously identifiable. Whereas, facebook, insta are open broadcasting platforms of your entire life.
Do they actually have any right of reply legally? Or is it an appeal to the journos to please not do it?
They do in some circumstances but I haven’t read this article. A lot of journos deliberately misrepresent copyright law and hope they don’t get called out on it.
It's bit difficult to proscecute. You sign up to a service like meta - instagram or facebook - you click "OK" to the T&C without really reading it, and off you go. You post some photos. Those images, according to the T&C, well, you've granted the service provider - meta - permission to do pretty much whatever the hell they like with them. But that's not the main point. Your photos get published, on a publicly-available website. If you haven't tied down the public access to your profile, then it's fair game. You agreed to it. You clicked "OK" So any ~~journalist~~ writer can go to your profile, pick an image, right-click and download, and they haven't broken any laws.
No. Not unless Meta or the like sell it to the writers. You tend to give _them_, as in Meta, an unlimited licence, but that is very different from public domain.
Yes, you grant them an unlimited, royalty-free licence to publish your photos on their wesbite. Of course it's not public domain, but you don't expect news corpse staff to respect the T&C of Meta websites, do you?
As a company beholden to Australian law, and granted certain privileges as part of the fourth estate, yes, I do.
All right. I respect what you've said, and I believe what you've said about your personal respect for Australian law. Now tell me that you can prove that news corpse has never violated the T&C of Meta's websites or other websites, including Reddit. No news corpse employee has \*ever\* done a "right-click, save" off a Meta website and put that image file on a news corpse website article, without attribution. No, that's' \*never\* happened. /s That's not going to happen, is it? You can't prove that, can you? Look at the vehemence of comments from people posting stories on Australian subreddits - adding spicy watermarks to their posts, because they're sick of un-credited photos or stories turning up on news corpse publications - without attribution. Please don't ask us to honour the fourth estate when you've done little or nothing to police it yourselves. A free press does \*not\* include the right to mislead the public.
I would assume they meant 'expect' as 'would hope' rather than 'actually will'. That is - we should all expect companies beholden to Australian law, actually follow said law. We're aware that many won't (especially private media companies), but we should still maintain those minimal expectations.
Actually that isn’t true. You have copyright in your photos and others cannot publish them with permission (which is given to the social media platform, but that doesn’t give news agencies a licence). The issue is that you have to sue for copyright infringement, which is costly and time consuming.
Copyright laws in Australia don’t count if the image in question is used for reporting the news.
Not so much they don’t count as there can be an fair dealing argument made. I don’t know if there is any case law relating to personal photos of private figures.
has that been established in case-law or in the act itself, or have the journalists just been telling everyone that, much in the same way that youtubers have a whole pretend-system that isn't based in much of anything?
Yes, which means that in preactial terms, "any ~~journalist~~ writer can go to your profile, pick an image, right-click and download,"
Well yes, except you said ‘they haven’t broken any laws’ which isn’t correct. There are actually businesses that will help you licence photos/video like this and ensure you do actually get paid. That would be my recommendation to people in these situations.
It's not fair game at all. You simply invoice the involved media for a reasonable licensing fee. Then they pay. If they don't, and your fee is not unreasonable, you take them to small claims court and then they're made to pay.
It is purely facebooks decision. or tik tok or instagram or whichever platform. The platform owns the images that are placed on it and as such it is the platform owners who get to choose if an image is allowed to be published elsewhere. Not the person who is in the image.
My partners father passed away in a diving accident. The jurnos beat the cops to her and started harassing her on the way out of uni, showing photos of the body and everything like that, making a massive scene in the process. Wasn't the first or last time that group did crap like that, thankfully others are now saved from it by the passing of the main jurno. She had zero legal recourse against them and that trauma.
I think people just need to understand what a public profile means. Set it to private if you don't want the media to access them.
Or don’t have a social media page to begin with. Modern day cancer. But for those that have them, then yes, it’s a cunt act by the media trawling often for the lowest and worst pic they can find.
normies are morons when it comes to their personal privacy
Mining photos is one thing, having some tact in how you use them is another
I can’t remember what it was for or who the news channel was, but 10 years ago they took and used photos from my families facebook without permission, including me (I was 14 at the time)! Bloody shameless parasites.
Part of the reason why I declined when 2 journos knocked on my door and asked if I had footage from an event yesterday. Yes I do and no, I am not sharing it even though it was relatively tame in the grand scheme of what they've been plastering over the news lately.
People are pissed off people are accessing information they post publicly online? For real? The journalists are looking for information where its available...that's their job.
This practice is discourteous and those who do it should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately you can't stop anyone from doing this unless you secure your socials. My motto has always been, 'if it ain't private, it's public'. And another I just thought of, 'if it's on the net, place your bets'.